Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS

>One of the problems I have found in games that use static armor 
>ratings or numbers is that they often fail to simulate special 
>design features in vehicles that do not entirely take in to account 
>armor as a whole. These specialized vehicles often excel in one 
>area, benefitting from a higher than normal survivability under 
>certain conditions/circumstances but not neccesarily against all 
>threats.

In just the same way as we have (say) armour 2A (class 2 armour with 
Ablative coating) or 2R (class 2 with Reactive armour), there is no 
reason why we couldn't have a 2M (class 2 with Mine Defence), with a 
bonus ONLY against mines and IEDs.

Jon (GZG)

>
>In SG2/DS2 you could up armor the vehicles to keep within the rules. 
>Or, you could design (for use in friendly games) a "Mine Resistent" 
>characteristic that could be added to vehicle designs. Left general 
>enough, this could be applied to any sort of vehicle. One of the 
>supposed benefits of air-cushioned GEVs is mine-resistence due to 
>reduced ground pressure and less direct contact with the impact 
>allowing the energy of the explosion to disperse in the space 
>within the plenum. The same might be said for Grav vehicles.
>
>Of course your individual PSB could do away with any of this. If you 
>GEV are not air-cushioned but used vectored thrust or your grav are 
>actually contra-grav or repulsor tech instead of true anti-grav, 
>then you  could also argue that they exert comparable pressue on the 
>ground that is enough to detonate mines and IEDs.
>
>-Eli
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>From: "Tom B" <kaladorn@gmail.com>
>John Atkinson made me think (not a new thing) about how one should 
>represent things like the Buffalo, Nyala, Gelandenwagen and various 
>other sorts of uparmoured, IED and small arms resistant vehicles in 
>SG2 and DS2.
>
>John mentioned armour level 2. That should let you shrug IAVRs and 
>small arms as well as reasonable IEDs (at least insofar as you may 
>get an M-kill, but not a crew or passenger kill). Most IEDs would 
>then constitute a non-penetrating hit.
>
>I'm guessing an IED (typical) might be D12 impact vs. armour. Hits 
>are probably automatic for command detonated ones (wire connection). 
>Bigger ones could be used. I'll assume the one used in the 
>Palestinian area to pulverize a Merkava was a lot larger (even 
>through the weaker bottom armour).
>
>If the IED does not penetrate, it should have a higher than standard 
>chance to score non-penetrating suspension hits (aka M-kills). I'm 
>not sure what a fair % might be - John, Oerjan, anyone? I'm also not 
>sure how often you'd get Firer Systems Down or other firecontrol 
>effects from an IED.
>
>Here is one place where Grav vehicles with generators inside the 
>hull armour look much better....
>
>TomB
>--
>"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a 
>terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
>Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I
>
>"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like 
>administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine
>
>Thomas Paine
>
>
>From: "Tom B" <kaladorn@gmail.com>
>To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS
>Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:16:26 +0000
>Content-Type: Multipart/mixed;
>  boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4967_1216067367_2"
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l